Techdirt. Stories filed under "maine"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "maine"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Fri, 5 Jan 2018 06:27:00 PSTMaine Governor Tells 16-Year-Old Worried About Net Neutrality Repeal To 'Pick Up A Book And Read'Karl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180103/07503738919/maine-governor-tells-16-year-old-worried-about-net-neutrality-repeal-to-pick-up-book-read.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180103/07503738919/maine-governor-tells-16-year-old-worried-about-net-neutrality-repeal-to-pick-up-book-read.shtml
As more than a few folks have noted, many opponents of net neutrality (from FCC boss Ajit Pai to Mark Cuban) are following blind ideology. Many of them quite honestly believe that no regulation can ever be good, and that government is absolutely never capable of doing the right thing. That kind of simplicity may feel good as you navigate a complicated world, but it's intellectually lazy. As a result, the decision to use net neutrality rules as an imperfect but necessary stopgap (until we can reduce corruption and drive more competition into the sector) simply befuddles them.

Of course this kind of blind ideology is particularly handy when you don't actually know how modern broadband markets or net neutrality even work, but your gut just tells you why the whole nefarious affair is simply bad. That's why you'll see folks like Ted Cruz consistently doubling down on bizarre, misleading claims based on repeatedly debunked falsehoods. Needless to say, this sort of lazy thinking is not particularly productive. Especially when you're a member of the same government purportedly tasked with analyzing real-world data, listening to constituent concerns, and actively tasked with making things better.

Case in point: one sixteen-year-old Maine high school student recently wrote to Maine Governor Paul LePage, clearly worried about the impact the broadband industry's attack on net neutrality will have on her ability to freely access information online. Camden Hills Regional High School sophomore Hope Osgood actually took the time to write her governor, expressing concern about how the repeal could pose problems for free speech, competition, and the health of information exchange:

"The internet is the easiest way to access anything. News, information, etc. Companies being able to put restrictions on internet usage isn’t ideal! People will be left in the dark about some things. All my school work is internet-based, but what happens if I can’t reach what I need to? What about my lessons in school?"

Osgood said she is concerned that big companies "might have more control over everything. If you wanted to go to a certain website, it might be slowed down. You might have to pay to access that, or it might be completely blocked off what you can see. They could filter news, media, or things they don’t agree with. I don’t think that should be able to happen. Everybody should be able to get information."

Le Page's response to her concerns? To scribble a response in the margins of her letter telling the kid to "pick up a book and read!":

His response not only is insulting, but makes no coherent sense. How would reading a book solve letting telecom monopolies run roughshod over competitors and the health of the internet? It wouldn't. Like so many others, LePage's disdain for net neutrality is being fueled entirely by blind ideology, and much like Donald Trump, the Governor probably couldn't tell you what net neutrality even is in one-on-one conversation. Needless to say, Osgood and her family didn't walk away charmed from her first run in with civil engagement:

"Osgood showed the letter to her grandfather, Rick Osgood, a LePage supporter who didn’t like the tone of the governor’s response.
Rick Osgood has voted for LePage twice and supports much of what the governor is doing in Maine, but he called LePage’s message “just a snide remark.”
“I think it’s mighty rude,” he said."

Again, a lot of the folks that aided and supported this latest attack on net neutrality don't really understand the backlash that's headed their direction, especially among younger voters. In their heads, they've heroically fought back a "government takeover of the internet" because they're letting blind ideology drive the car. In reality, they've made a stupid, unpopular, economically unsupportable decision that's going to impact voting decisions for the next decade. Watching many of them realize this when election time rolls around should provide at least a modicum of entertainment value in the wake of one of the worst tech policy decisions in a generation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>you're-not-helpinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20180103/07503738919Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:33:17 PSTMaine Government Agency Tries To Charge Public Records Requester $750 For Opening A PDFTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171126/14403138681/maine-government-agency-tries-to-charge-public-records-requester-750-opening-pdf.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171126/14403138681/maine-government-agency-tries-to-charge-public-records-requester-750-opening-pdf.shtml
We've seen lots of ridiculous amounts tossed around by government agencies in response to public records requests. Most of the ridiculous amounts we've covered give the appearance that the agency making the demand feels requesters are also spending other people's money. Like a Texas agency demanding $1 million for prison sexual assault records or the FBI wanting $270,000 to hand over files on defense contractor Booz Allen.

Other demands are smaller, but no less of a deterrent to government transparency. In one infamous example, the Massachusetts State Police erected a $180 paywall around documents related to the agency's marijuana enforcement efforts. Once the agency had the money in hand, it turned around and asked the state supervisor of public records to declare the requested records exempt from release. That was back in July. The MSP still has yet to release the records the requester paid for.

Per your FOAA request of November 3, 2017, I am submitting a digital copy of our proposal to Amazon. The proposal was prepared by our in-house staff, within our current marketing budget. There were no third-party entities involved in its preparation. We do not agree to waive any fees. By accepting and opening this document, you agree to reimburse the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority $750.00 for associated administrative and legal fees. Please remit check to:

Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority

15 Terminal Road, Suite 200 Brunswick, ME 04011

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven H. Levesque Executive Director

Lustig won't be paying this fee. As it noted in the MuckRock post, Maine law prohibits the collection of more than $30 in public records fees without advance notification. There was no notification here -- only the idiotic assertion that opening a PDF would result in Lustig agreeing to pay $750 to the Brunswick agency. The agency has yet to respond to Lustig's refusal, which seems to suggest other people not named Steven Levesque realized it was a stupid, unenforceable, and possibly illegal demand.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>gov't-agencies-and-their-'get-rich-quick'-schemeshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20171126/14403138681Thu, 4 May 2017 11:52:00 PDTMaine The Latest State To Try And Let Giant Broadband Providers Write Shitty, Protectionist State LawKarl Bodehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170503/06115337293/maine-latest-state-to-try-let-giant-broadband-providers-write-shitty-protectionist-state-law.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170503/06115337293/maine-latest-state-to-try-let-giant-broadband-providers-write-shitty-protectionist-state-law.shtml
One of (several) reasons why American broadband is so uncompetitive is the fact that we continue to let giant broadband mono/duopolies quite literally write awful state telecom law. As we've long noted, more than twenty different states have passed laws making it difficult to impossible for towns and cities to improve their local broadband networks -- even in instances when the entrenched duopoly refuses to. Many of these laws even ban towns and cities from entering into public/private partnerships with the likes of Google Fiber. It's pure protectionism.

Maine is the 49th ranked state in broadband speed and coverage -- in large part due to rural markets. Despite countless years of subsidies, broadband providers consistently refuse to seriously upgrade these areas at any scale due to costs. And yet they refuse to let the towns do it themselves, either. State Representative Nate Wadsworth has introduced HP1040, aka "An Act To Encourage Broadband Development through Private Investment." Except like so many of these bills, the proposed law's name is a stark 180 from what the legislative measure actually does.

You see Wadsworth is a state chair for ALEC, the group most ISPs use to help them ghost write these protectionist bills. And Wadsworth's proposal, like countless others, imposes a laundry list of restrictions on any town or city that might dare try to do something about the fairly awful service state residents receive from the likes of Frontier Communications and Comcast. From limits to how money can be raised to requirements for repeated public referendums (at which point deep-pocketed ISPs outspend local advocates), communities suddenly face all manner of restrictions on what they can or can't do in their own backyards.

Page Clason, Member of the Islesboro Broadband Committee, described HP 1040 this way:

"I would say this proposed bill is puzzling because while suggested to promote investment of broadband in Maine it would do the opposite. Nothing in the bill provides stimulus, most everything in the bill provides increased hurdles and costs for communities needing the broadband investments. The only stimulus I can garner from such an approach would be that the largest providers would be further comforted that no other service providers would show up to do the builds that the dominating providers have not been supplying for the last few decades."

More often than not, backers of these bills claim they're only looking to protect taxpayers from fiscal mismanagement. But community broadband networks aren't by nature inherently dysfunctional (though they're often sold that way by municipal broadband opponents). They're like any other business plan: some are good, and some aren't. But the reality is that towns and cities wouldn't be getting into the broadband business if they were happy with local service. The "solution" to this organic backlash isn't letting giant duopolists write shitty law; the solution is more competition.

And laws banning municipal broadband -- and especially public/private partnerships -- accomplish the exact opposite of that. And while large ISPs (and their ocean of paid think tankers, economists, and other doller-per-holler professionals) have tried to make this a partisan issue -- the vast majority of municipal networks are built in Conservative areas with broad, bipartisan support. That's because there's one thing we can all agree on: nobody likes the local cable and broadband monopoly. And, as the local Maine newspapers make clear, consumers aren't half as dumb as many politicians think they are:

"I can guarantee you if this bill moves forward, they will hear from an awful lot of very angry people," (said one Maine resident). “Maine people are self-reliant, but island people are very self-reliant. When the boat stops at the end of the day, we take care of each other, and if somebody comes in from the outside and says we can’t take care of ourselves, that message won’t go over well."

The public is, however, inattentive -- and so state by state, large ISPs like Frontier, CenturyLink, AT&T and Comcast continue to push such bills through state legislatures. When they can't get a bill passed once, they'll try repeated times. When that doesn't work, they'll try to push these restrictions through via entirely unrelated legislation, like traffic bills. These same companies will then whine excessively about "overreach" when government does things they don't like, but remain dead quiet when they use that precise same government to protect the dysfunctional status quo.

Update: Lo and behold, the fierce public opposition has resulted in the bill being killed. Pressure appears to have been so intense, even the bill's sponsor, Nate Wadsworth, voted it down.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>you're not helpinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20170503/06115337293Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:49:47 PDTGovernor Tells High School Students He'd Like To Shoot A Student's Dad; Arrest/Investigation Fail To EnsueTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150630/14014831505/governor-tells-high-school-students-hed-like-to-shoot-students-dad-arrestinvestigation-fail-to-ensue.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150630/14014831505/governor-tells-high-school-students-hed-like-to-shoot-students-dad-arrestinvestigation-fail-to-ensue.shtml
We've recently discussed at length the subpoena and gag order issued by the Assistant US Attorney over some tasteless, but innocuous, comments made by Reason readers. Anyone who's spent any time in comment sections would have seen these comments as nothing more than the internet being the internet -- a place where hyperbole and stupidity very often outweighs thought and nuance. The comments are being treated as serious threats by the US government, seeing as they were posted below an article about a federal judge. Here are two of the more "violent" comments:

AgammamonI5.31.15 @ lO:47AMltt Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.

AlanI5.31.15 @ 12:09PMltt It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot. FTFY.

croakerI6.1.15 @ 11:06AMltt Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first.

Cloudbusterl6.l.15 @ 2:40PMIIt Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage's joke about shooting a political cartoonist is falling flat.

The son of Bangor Daily News cartoonist George Danby said LePage made the remark after he asked what the governor thought of his father's cartoons Wednesday during an event at Dirigo Boys State, a youth leadership program.

The governor told a crowd of high school students he would like to "shoot" this cartoonist. This was said directly to the cartoonist's son during a Q&A session with the governor. (Video -- albeit silent -- of the incident located here.) The Bangor Daily News noted the audience of teens laughed and took it as a joke. And it was, albeit a horrifically tasteless one considering cartoonists have very recently been shot for expressing their views. (That the governor's joke about shooting someone, delivered at a school event, wasn't immediately greeted with a swarm of police officers and strongly-worded condemnations by school officials is yet another bit of hypocrisy…)

Cartoonist George Danby -- the one the governor would like to shoot -- doesn't find the joke particularly funny. But as offended as he is, he's only asking for an apology, not an investigation. (And he still hasn't received one.)

A day after Gov. Paul LePage told a group of high school students that he would “like to shoot” a Bangor Daily News cartoonist, a top advocate for expanding passenger rail to Lewiston-Auburn said that LePage earlier this month said state lawmakers from Lewiston should be “rounded up and executed in the public square.”

That this alleged statement -- made on government property in a government building -- wasn't greeted with police officers, arrests, etc. is also hypocritical. Given the paranoiac thinking that has passed for "caution" since 2001, someone talking about shooting people while in a government building is usually considered to be something best handled with deployments of force and zealous prosecution. Then there's the fact that this joke Godwins itself by aligning Governor LePage with other political figures who had opponents rounded up and shot.

That LePage ever delivered this second shooting "joke" is still debatable. One person attending this meeting in the governor's office claims to have heard it. Other attendees disagree. But either way, we have at least one confirmed instance of a political figure claiming he'd like to shoot someone he doesn't like.

But there's no investigation underway and no one is calling for an indictment of LePage for issuing a "threat." Because it isn't one. It's simply hyperbolic speech uttered without intent or desire to actually follow through with such an act. It's what people do when expressing displeasure with someone or something. It happens all the time. Except when it happens in a comment section and the subject is a federal judge, it suddenly becomes a threat worthy of investigation and obfuscation by the US Attorney's Office.

When it's a politician "targeting" a little person, no one cares, even with the recent Charlie Hebdo shooting as a backdrop -- a justification for cartoonist George Danby to take this "threat" very personally indeed. But Danby doesn't think LePage truly wants him dead and recognizes it for what it is. The "little people" who aren't afforded the full power of their government are much more rational than those with it at their disposal.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>hahaha-but-srsly-i-want-to-kill-ur-dad-jkhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20150630/14014831505Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:57:51 PSTApparently Attacking A Candidate For Being A World Of Warcraft Player Is Not An Effective Campaign StrategyMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/11240420964/apparently-attacking-candidate-being-world-warcraft-player-is-not-effective-campaign-strategy.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121107/11240420964/apparently-attacking-candidate-being-world-warcraft-player-is-not-effective-campaign-strategy.shtmlhighlighting her enjoyment of World of Warcraft and then taking some of her statements about the game completely out of context, to imply they were political statements that had relevance beyond inside the game. Even after this was widely mocked, the folks behind the mailer defended it.

In the end, it appears that this was not an effective campaign strategy. As highlighted by Slashdot, Lachowicz won her campaign and was elected. The article notes that the attention from the bizarre attacks resulted in support from "gamers from around the world," who helped raise an additional $6,300 in contributions for her campaign. Not knowing when to back down and go away, her opponents claimed that the money raised was done so illegally, though an ethics board cleared her of any wrongdoing.

Perhaps, next time, politicians will recognize that mocking a candidate for doing something millions of people enjoy is not a particularly smart campaign strategy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>vanquishedhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121107/11240420964Fri, 5 Oct 2012 05:22:32 PDTMaine GOP Apparently Believes That Playing World Of Warcraft Makes You Unfit For OfficeMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121004/15110720598/maine-gop-apparently-believes-that-playing-world-warcraft-makes-you-unfit-office.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121004/15110720598/maine-gop-apparently-believes-that-playing-world-warcraft-makes-you-unfit-office.shtmlattacking the fact that she played World of Warcraft, pulling a bunch of forum quotes she made a few years ago, and taking them out of context -- such as her statement that "I love poisoning and stabbing. It is fun."

Tim Lee's writeup at Ars hits on exactly the right response:

Lachowicz uses salty language in some of the comments, but someone needs to sit the Maine GOP down and explain the difference between fantasy and reality. Every day, millions of people engage in simulated video game violence without committing any real-world violence. By suggesting a World of Warcraft hobby should disqualify someone for office—and implying that voters are too dumb to tell the difference between virtual and real violence—the party is only embarrassing itself.

Later, a spokesman tried to defend the flier, arguing that it raised questions about her work ethic. How? Well, state GOP spokesperson David Sorenson used "the number of hours most World of Warcraft gamers spend playing the game (22.7 per week, on average) and the number it must have taken her to reach such a high level" as some sort of proof that her work ethic is problematic. First of all, using the average amount of time someone plays WoW is meaningless in looking at how much any individual plays. Also, isn't achieving a high level a sign of a strong work ethic?

Once again, Lee's response is perfect:

It's worth noting that the average American watches more than 30 hours of television per week. Many other Americans spend their evenings and weekends at the golf course. Yet it's hard to imagine anyone suggesting that devoting 22 hours per week to those hobbies made a candidate too lazy to hold elected office.

I realize it's election season, and with that comes really, really dumb campaign ideas from nearly every political party and/or candidate, but it's difficult to see how this particular strategy is good for anyone -- especially if you want younger people to vote for you. The younger generation tends to respect and look up to gamer politicians. Attacking them for doing something that millions of people enjoy just doesn't seem particularly smart.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>youth-vote?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121004/15110720598Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:28:00 PDTMaine Demands That The US Be More Open And Transparent In TPP & Other International Trade NegotiationsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/09345818138/maine-demands-that-us-be-more-open-transparent-tpp-other-international-trade-negotiations.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/09345818138/maine-demands-that-us-be-more-open-transparent-tpp-other-international-trade-negotiations.shtmlridiculously secretive about negotiations on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, it seems that even various state governments are growing concerned about the process. The Maine state legislature issued a joint resolution demanding that the administration be much more open in how it negotiates international trade agreements. The resolution states that it strongly supports good international agreements, but that they need to be open and transparent. It notes that the lack of transparency has meant that trade negotiations have come to agreements against states' own interests and that the negotiators do not consult the states, despite the massive impact these agreements have on state economies. Then it specifically calls out the TPP, and says that the administration must improve the process. Here's just a few of the lines from the resolution, though you can read the whole thing at the link above.

WHEREAS, existing trade agreements have effects that extend significantly beyond the bounds of traditional trade matters, such as tariffs and quotas, and can undermine Maine's regulatory authority and constitutionally guaranteed authority to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and

WHEREAS, a succession of federal trade negotiators from both political parties over the years has failed to operate in a transparent manner and failed to meaningfully consult with states on the far-reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local laws, even when binding the State of Maine to the terms of these agreements; and

WHEREAS, the negative effect of existing trade agreements on Maine's regulatory authority and constitutionally guaranteed authority to protect the public health, safety and welfare has occurred in part because United States trade policy has been formulated and implemented in a process that lacks transparency, fails to properly recognize the principles of state sovereignty and lacks any meaningful opportunity for congressional review and acceptance; and

WHEREAS, the United States Trade Representative is currently negotiating the terms of a proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which will have a significant effect upon the citizens and commerce of the State of Maine; and

WHEREAS, there is a current opportunity for improving the process by which significant foreign trade policy agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement are negotiated; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That We, your Memorialists, respectfully urge and request the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States to improve the process by which United States trade agreements are developed and implemented in order to encourage meaningful transparency and appropriately acknowledge the vital role of state sovereignty and afford more meaningful opportunity for congressional review and acceptance

When even the state governments are complaining about the lack of transparency in trade negotiations that impact them, can the USTR really continue to pretend that there are no problems with the way it goes about these negotiations?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>good-for-themhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120316/09345818138Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:58:27 PSTMaine Wants Mobile Phones To Carry A Cancer Warning... Despite Lack Of Evidence; [Updated: SF Too]Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091222/0229487460.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091222/0229487460.shtmlextremely unlikely to have any meaningful impact on causing cancer. Yet, that doesn't stop the worries that have long been associated with (almost always unscientific folks) when it comes to wireless signals. The latest such situation involves a politician in Maine pushing for a law that would put cancer warning labels on mobile phones.

But here's the thing: even if these warnings were put on phones, what would it do? Would people really stop using their mobile phones or make any behavioral adjustment just because of these labels? There might be a few people, but I'd imagine that those who already are sure that mobile phones cause cancer have already acted accordingly. Update: And... just like that, comes the news that San Francisco is considering the same thing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>yeah that'll helphttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091222/0229487460Thu, 14 May 2009 06:55:00 PDTCampgrounds In Maine Can't Compete Against Free... So Want It OutlawedMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090511/0118214830.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090511/0118214830.shtmloutlaw the ability of any company to let RVs park overnight for free. The battle basically pits campgrounds, which charge fees, against Wal-Mart, which has always allowed RVs to park in their parking lots for free, recognizing that many who stay overnight in their parking lots will likely pick up supplies at Wal-Mart as well. There doesn't seem to be any actual rationale for the "no free overnight parking" law, other than that the campgrounds are upset that they're losing business. The whole thing seems rather silly, though. A Wal-Mart parking lot is hardly a scenic location. Are these campgrounds offering so little that they can't compete against a giant empty concrete parking lot? Of course, if this law does pass, the end result is pretty predictable. Rather than driving more RVs to campsites, RV owners may just start avoiding Maine altogether.